politics." i'm conditioning kpg. with us to share reporting and inside, molly ball, peter baker, ed o'keefe and ta mara keith. sad, breaking news, a claim by isis it beheaded a third american, aide worker peter kassig. the white house says it is analyzing the video released by isis and if confirmed we are appalled by the prutal murder of an innocent american aide worker. kassig's parents are aware of the video and awaiting word from the government. they urge news organizations not to broadcast the video or publish images from it "saying

we prefer he's written about for the love he shared with friends and family, not in the manner the hostage takers would use to manipulate americans and further their cause." in the two further cases the videos turned out to be actual beheadings. isis is a terrorist group and military organization taking land in iraq and syria and the question being raised in this town this morning, is the president's strategy working? air strikes alone is it working or further proof that he might have to do more. >> there's a lot of talk of that, ground troops in there, he said no in the past, he was asked during his trip to australia, will that change? you can't rule anything out, hypotheticals, what if isis would have a nuclear device, nice chilling thought for a sunday morning. it's early still, they didn't expect this campaign to turn things over, overnight but there's an impatience obviously that this latest incident

underscores and how much longer can the president hold people together behind a strategy that hasn't yet seemed to produce the result we want. >> peter made the point about what the president said and let's start with general dempsey. america's top general was before congress in iraq having consultations with the iraqi military and government about what to do next. listen to general dempsey before congress, the second straight timeis' gone before congress. he knows the president said no ground troops in iraq. listen to the general. >> i'm not predicting at this point i'd recommend those forces in mosul and along the border would need to be accompanied by u.s. forces but we're certainly considering it. >> "certainly considering it." america's top general says, as peter baker noted. here is the president hours ago in australia at a news conference before heading home. >> there are always circumstances in which the united states might need to deploy u.s. ground troops. if we discovered that isil had

gotten possession of a nuclear weapon, and we had to run an operation to get it out of their hands, then yes, you can anticipate that not only would chairman dempsey recommend me sending u.s. ground troops to get that weapon out of their hands but i would order it. >> molly ball, the president talking about the specter of isis possibly getting a numbering clear weapon is one thing. i also take that as a public rebuttal of the general who says we might need ground troops to help iraqis up along the border, not a nuclear weapon confrontation. why do we have the public tension? >> they worry about mission creep, you have a military whose job it is to fight wars and so that's always what they're going to want to do and in any situation where they're being hemmed in as they may see it, that they're going to want to expand the mission to attack

more forcefully because that is the way they feel they can be most effective, so to those like the president himself, who want to limit the scope of this and make sure that it doesn't get out of hand and become other full-fledged conflict, it's very difficult to push back against that, because in any situation you're going to have setbacks like we are seeing today. it's going to be imperfect and messy, may not get the job done and you have to reconsider do we say oh, well, or do we expand the mission, and since the day the president announced this action, a lot of people on capitol hill, mostly republicans, have been urging him to expand the mandate and we'll hear that more in the current session of congress wanting to expand the scope of what the u.s. is doing against isis >> and the question is, will the white house listen and how unified will that debate be in the sense that molly noted some republicans from the beginning said you're going to need ground troops. there's reports about new alliances inside egypt and other

countries, isis is spreading its reach and power. on capitol hill the democrats don't want ground troops in iraq, but will the newly empowered republicans be able to pressure the president if. >> i think they'll force the debate and bring up guys like general dempsey to discuss this and to create an even greater public schism between the military and the president. whether or not a debate gets held and when it would be held is still an open question, there's going to be a modest conversation about it, and i really only say conversation because they've got to dot defense policy but by the end of this year and it's expected to sort of keep things as they are right now, with some expectation that at some point next year, there would be a bigger, broader debate about do we need ground troops, do we need to devote much more money and resources to this but there's no groundswell of an appetite to do this. the thing that finally compels lawmakers to think about it more and schedule time for debate is unfortunately what happened this morning, it takes that, you know, you're hearing a lot of talk about immigration and

spending and about a new power structure. it's this thing that reminds americans that congress sometimes drops the ball and isn't willing to talk about the things. lawmakers remember that and they force a debate. >> i go's that's the question, does this change american public opinion? we saw with the previous two beheadings the american people became more open to military, using military force, more open to doing something but this is a president who was elected saying i'm going to get the americans out of the middle east and now he's managing a military intervention he says won't become a ground war but even he says's agoing to hand this off to his successor in some shape or form. will a third beheading make the american public want to do more? >> it depends which person you're talking to. there is a visceral reaction to these types of videos, this type of beheading. this is an innocent aide worker just trying to do good and that causes people to react. i don't know exactly what it does to the politics, though.

i do know that we haven't been talking about isis that much lately in the last few weeks. it's been ebola, it's been china, it's been all kinds of other things but it hasn't been about isis. isis moves back to the front and gets a lot more attention and that puts it back in the political realm. >> when we see, peter, the tension between the pentagon and the white house, is that it or is there tension inside the white house? is the president getting it from inside his inner circle saying mr. president, you might need to be more aggressive, you might need to do more or is it just across the river? >> this issue historically split this white house and it's understandable, people on one side or the other feel strongly there are complicated dynamics involved and the other side has a point. how much do we intervene and how much do we want to involve ourselves in somebody else's civil war. it's taken three years until we have gotten to the point where we are involved more directly. the president says we're not in

there to get rid of president bashar al assad, there to fight isis or isil, but what are the limits of what we want to do, how far do we want to go? what the military feels is partly not just limits on what they do but partly on what they are saying they're going to do, they say i'm not going to put ground troops and they don't have to either but the idea that we're ruling it out in a pre-ordained way without having, signaling that to the other side, they also object to it. >> we'll keep track of how the debate changes in washington. the family will await word from the government to find out if this is indeed true. up next the president is days away from executive action on immigration some conservatives say would warrant impeachme impeachment.

bonjour. comment ce va? bonjour. comment ce va? due cappuccini, per favore. domo... arigato? arigato united flies to more destinations than any other airline. namaste. over 5100 daily flights to nearly 60 countries. namaste. plus, over 230 us cities. dessert? pee-can pie. pecan? yeah. okay. in any language, that's...gateway to the world friendly.

welcome back. breaking news this sunday morning, the apparent beheading by isis of an american aide worker taking hostage in syria. as president obama heads back from washington from a week in asia, he is preparing executive actions that would protect nearly half of the estimated 11 million undocumented workers here in the united states. republicans fresh from their wins in the midterm elections say that would be an abuse of power. the president was defiant. >> there is a very simple solution to this perception that somehow i'm exercising too much executive authority. pass a bill i can sign on this issue.

if congress passes a law that solves our border problems, improves our legal immigration system and provides a pathway for the 11 million people who are here, working in our kitc n kitchens, working in farms, making beds in hotels, everybody knows they're there, we're not going to deport all of them. give me a bill that addresses those issues, i'll be the first one to sign it and metaphoric metaphorically i'll krumpl up any executive actions we take and i'll toss them in the wastebasket. >> the president in australia there at australia before headed home. so the president's going to act and he made it quite clear republicans on capitol hill urged the speaker and incoming majority leader have said don't do this but is the president just baiting the republicans

here? he's at 42%. he was just repudiated in the midterm election and some conservatives saying impeach him, small number but some conservatives say impeach him, others saying if he does this, let's shut down the government, deny government fund so long he can't do this. is the president trying to bait the republicans into overrea overreacting? >> he wasn't doing it this past week but on immigration. what he said and did in china and the warning about immigration, absolutely. he's totally scrambled the well-laid plans of republicans as they take control of congress. now there's talk about passing just a short term spending agreement until maybe next spring instead of finishing it through the fiscal year so congress can respond to whatever he does, exactly what mitch mcconnell and john boehner didn't want to have to do. they wanted to have the rest of the fiscal year to plan for the next fiscal year and try to restore regular order. if he does this, yes, small pockets of republicans talking about impeachment, talk about

cutting funding to immigration agencies and weeks of uncertainty when spending bills will be completed and a lot of hot talk about this president being imperial power and possibly a lot of republicans worry some of their colleagues will talk about immigrants in a way that will continue to alienate themselves from the hispanic population. >> to help the president rebound politically and deepen their crisis with latino voters. among the voices urging republicans to chill, my word, not his s karl rove. republicans must be firm but not angry and stop hot-techerred republicans in congress from demanding impeachment. mr. obama would win political if republicans become so enranld they react. that's what seems to be. >> the strategy is republicans have basically said if you do this thing, we will punch ourselves in the face. he's saying go ahead, punch yourselves in the face. talking about shutting the

government down shall the impeachment word coming back up again, possibly dumbing up the system and if this, if it all this fiscal stuff gets pushed into the new year, then the new republican congress doesn't have this clean slate. they have the very thing they were hoping to avoid. that's good for democrats. >> is there a debate in the white house whether he has the legal authority to do this? politically he's promised latinos since day one. both presidents george w. and george h.w. bush took action. to stop people from diagnose deported to use executive power on immigration policy, is there any debate that he has this power? >> the debate has been between president obama and president owe what. it was a couple years ago president obama trying to pressure from immigration activists and from his left saying i don't have the power you want me to do. two or three years later, fresh opinions from the justice department saying actually i do

have the power to do it. at this point within the white house there's consensus he does have this power, obviously rejected by the republicans and he's going to go ahead probably as early as this week. >> what does it say about the new washington? a president doing this by executive action, taking climate change, signed a deal with china that commits the united states to reductions and commits china to hopeful reductions and a peek down the road, republicans say the president gave away a lot of gut nothing. the keystone pipeline is that something the president is going to veto. >> no, i really don't think we have' gotten much of a signal -- >> we had an election year everybody said they wanted to get along. >> it is amazing how short this honeymoon is in. it lasted just until we get to an actual issue. it was easy to talk about happy bipartisanship until they get to something they disagreed on. the same old dynamic reinserted

itself. taking executive action will possibly be an unpopular thing but this president has nothing to lose. that's what he's signaling to republicans, he has nothing to lose and with the democrats in small minority in both houses of congress they don't have a lot to lose. there's two years until the next election and they think this puts republicans in the box. republicans wish this issue would go away. in the next two years there's a lot more issues the republican congress wishes would go away. it's their job to deal with them and that gives the white house juice to say it's on your guys. >> if he vetoes it, nobody on capitol hill would be upset about it because it creates political distance between the moderate democrat upset with how things have been run and put blame on the president and republicans will love it, next year, they can do it again with expanded majority and maybe compel democrats to get to a veto-proof majority, override the president and win. >> as we wait to see how the new washington plays out, the

president will he cut deals? i don't think we'll see it in the final two years. mcconnell boehner were de dealmakers back in their day. the democrats brought in elizabeth warren, a freshman senator. lot of liberals wish she'd become a candidate for president. is she going to have an active role in shaping the agenda or there to be the watchdog on the base to tell harry reid and the rest of the old guard leadership when the grassroots might be a little orange. >> larry: i think hara . >> i think harry reid had to bring her in. you have the moderate side of the democratic conference and you have the liberal balance. >> does it definitively answer the question she's not running? >> no. >> because hillary clinton was

given a similar role in 2002 before she ran in 2008. lib rals were overjoyed to see her finally get a seat at the table. there are now four women in the democratic leadership and four men and reid brought some parody to that, a signal to women voters that we're listening to you. lot of you here in the senate at least among democrats and getting more of a percentage. >> exact same 07-something leaders been there for years and years, not a fresh face after a bad election. they chose to double down rather than make a change. >> you wonder why people don't like washington and it continues to look the same. we'll see if it acts any differently. up next, tomorrow's news today, our reporters get you out ahead of the big news around the corner. democrats and republicans in the senate could find a rare piece of common ground. stay with us.

two weeks later. look, credit karma--

are you talking to websites again? this website says "free credit scores." oh, credit karma! yeah it's actually free. look, you don't have to put in your credit card information. whew! credit karma. really free credit scores.

. let's go around the "inside politics" table, ask our great reporter fos are a sneak peek at political news ahead. molly ball? >> we mentioned the keystone vote is coming up this week in the senate. that is the brainchild of mary landrieu, who has been campaigning for it passionately. this is her desperate last-ditch attempt to save her runoff election. as you recall she hasn't gone

through her election, coming up december th against phil cassidy who also got a keystone vote. most people think it's not enough to save mary landrieu. she's a dead democrat walking. the tea party endorsed cassidy. 90% of the advertising on the louisiana air waves is in favor of cassidy. unless we see a big change in the dynamic as a result of the keystone vote, mary landrieu has a tough fight. >> 90%, ouch. >> if last week was challenging for harry reid there's a test coming up for nancy pelosi this week. no doubt she'll be reelected as democratic leader in the house, but there's a proxy battle for the top democratic job on the house energy and commerce committee, pits new jersey democrat frank pallone who has seniority against california democrat anan eschu, good friend of pelosi.

she's been twisting some arms that refuse to allow people to vote by proxy from a distance if they're unable to be here. generated a lot of bad blood and a few different rank and file members said this is just a little too high school for them but it's a test of her continued leadership and whether or not she'll be able to continue to hold onto the caucus as strongly as she has in recent years. >> just now members of congress saying it's a little hoo high school? tamara? >> there's talk of the president having to use his veto pen potentially more in the coming year. he's only used it twice in his entire presidency and the question now though to me is, will he really have to use it all this much? the first big test is coming up this week with the keystone xcel pipeline vote. the word is there are 59 votes and some optimism, maybe they'll get to 60 but maybe not. my question is how soon will he really have to use that veto pen and how frequently, given the close balance in the senate.

>> you have to pass things to veto them. we'll watch that. peter? >> we talk about bipartisan, can the parties work together. one area for a possible deal in the days and weeks to come on appointments. president obama has a lot of nominations languishing on the hill. working with harry reid and mitch mcconnell to get a package deal through, push a bunch through, tossing over to the side some of the more controversial ones like nominee for surgeon general and that guy who wants to be ambassador to norway, which is never busy. >> president doing some trading, unique for this president to see if he ka areries that one out. i'll close with the tea party republican establishment intentions aren't just in washington. new hampshire republicans won by the house of representatives on election day. former house speaker bill o'brien wants the gavel back but he's viewed as a tea party lightning rod, a conservative rod when he was speaker in the past. an array of powerful new hampshire politicians are trying to block him from getting his

job back including john sununu and kelly ayotte. she needs independents and moderates in 2016 which would be a presidential year so watch that one play out in concord. that's it for "inside politics." thanks for sharing your sunday morning with us. "state of the union with candy crowley" starts right now. isis releases a new video claiming to have beheaded another american, threatening to bring its violence to u.s. streets. today, the senate's number two democrat dick durbin on isis abroad and politics at home. plus the more things change, the more they seem the same. >> that's going to happen. that's going to happen before the end of the year. >> we're going to fight the president tooth and nail. >> the showdown over immigration with congressman xavier becerra, former bush attorney general alberto gonzalez and for